We've Had 40 Years Of Trigger Mechanism With Insurance Companies! Congressman Weiner

[ExquisiteDoom]

Healthcare is a fraud, end of story. Government is a bigger fraud, end of story. Add competition, deregulate, problem solved in a matter of a few days or weeks. End of story.

[greyflcn]

re: ExquisiteDoom

Well they tried that with Credit Default Swaps. (i.e. A form of insurance)

The primary distributor of this type of insurance being AIG.

How well did that go?

greyfalcon. net/ cds3

greyfalcon. net/ cds

What's more, Texas is perhaps the most deregulated State in the union.

How well is their performance on premium costs, and coverage?

greyfalcon. net/ tort

[ExquisiteDoom]

Bad example. Reason : Federal reserve. Private organisation which owns the monopoly on money, and is backed by government in a mutually beneficial and morally hazardeous partnership.

How well can swaps do without either government involvement or a valueless currency?

Free market logic wins all arguments.

[greyflcn]

re: ExquisiteDoom

"Free market logic wins all arguments."

So basically your argument is that libertarian economics can never fail, because it's never actually existed?

[ExquisiteDoom]

The free market has always existed and has been a part of mutually beneficial trades since the dawn of times when humans realized we all could experiment in different fields and trade the knowledge and tools to one another. It is a simple realization that a good has a certain margin of utility compared to another one. It has however, never been completely free. It has always been held back , mostly due to the myth of monopolies, which have never been proven. Thanks to government propaganda.

[greyflcn]

re: ExquisiteDoom

Well then, would it be possible to make the argument that, Without the removal of the Federal Reserve.

That deregulation can have negative consequences?

[ExquisiteDoom]

Agreed. The whole purpose of the glass steagle was to give an approximate cap on banking swaps, derivatives, and other exotic financial instruments. Sounds to me like the plan was to remove these rules incrementally.

[bigtex501]

CBS NEWS

BROKEN PROMISES BY OBAMA

"NO individual mandate to buy health insurance!"

Jan. 31, 2008...

obama... "I think we can anticipate that there would be people potentially who are not covered & are actually HURT if they have ***a mandate imposed*** on them."

In June 2009...

obama indicated in a letter to Kennedy & Sen. Max Baucus that he was changing his tune to ***accommodate Congress*** on the proposed bills that CALL for an ***individual mandates***!

[sx200ser]

I support my public option, a government plan run just like any private company by premiums, it would mostly apply to anyone working full time/part time and small business.

say this is what it costs per person per week/bi-weekly or monthly. right off your pay check. as an option you aren't forced to pay or get it. get a private plan or get no insurance your choice. it is the most simple but sadly doesn't address everyone as its not free

[TheVikingNinja]

wow a jewish congressman, who ever heard of such a thing

[iLLynch]

i hate to be such a little kid but.... i would have to get a name change!!! Mr. Weiner

[Pvtjamesryan2]

Keep the ball rolling?

American media turning into Texas with their ridiculous metaphors.

[helltrackrider]

Why not let the Free Market take course?

Does Government have to control EVERYTHING?

The whole idea of Government was to Protect our Individual Rights; and now, we are in a Fascist shithole where Government dictates how much water can spew out of a freggin faucet!

Ridiculous.

Open up the State borders for purchasing across states...let the insurance companies pool people together by riskcategories...let supply-vs-demand take place; aboslute absurdity that we are in this situation.

[greyflcn]

re: helltrackrider

Tell you what.

If you want States to give up their ability to regulate the minimum quality of insurance plans in their state.

Would you be okay with the Federal Government doing it instead?

[helltrackrider]

What I would prefer...as many others...and as would be legit in accordance with the Constitution...is Free Market Health Insurance...let the Demand for Insurance dictate the price.

The supply will obviously be there from MANY different competitors offering different risk coverages; let the people funnel in and drive down the cost to a level that is profitable and sustainable as determined by the market; the market being me, you and everyone else needing/wanting Health Insurance.

[helltrackrider]

The Government has no authority in TELLING a doctor what he or she will get paid for a service; nor do they have the authority to TAX an individual that opts not to get Health Insurance because they dont deem it a priority in their life...that is a personal decision...noone elses.

[SigmundJaehn]

It's a personal decision that has effects beyond the individual.

[greyflcn]

re: helltrackrider

42 states ban insurance companies from treating domestic violence as a pre-existing condition.

Are you telling me that both the State and Federal government shouldn't be able to regulate that?

[helltrackrider]

no...they shouldnt be telling ANY company what to do if it violates ANYONES Rights...period.

Get the States and especially the Federal Govt away from insurance, and let the PEOPLE choose what is best for them...very simple, and will work.

Look at EVERY other country that has government controlled insurance, cost too much and is worthless...

hell, our Social Security and Medicare is taking up around 30-35% of our budget...and it is worthless and Unconstitutional.

[greyflcn]

re: helltrackrider

"every other country" "cost" "worthless"

How do you figure that?

greyfalcon. net/ healthcare

[martinaoe2]

Well if there was competition companies would be forced to provide a product the customer wants.The market is distorted at the moment with the monopolies they have.

If there is a demand for pre-existing conditions insurance then a company will rise up and cover them at extra cost of course.

I would not buy from a company that did something like that.The market would create a forum on health care and they would name and shame that company.Competition is key. The company should fear its customers.

[greyflcn]

re: martinaoe2

You're making the assumption that markets without venture capital rates of investment return, with high economies of scale, trend towards de-conglomeration.

(Or basically that there's no situation in which deregulation leads to conglomeration)

Is that really true?

[martinaoe2]

Monopolies only occur with government intervention. The free market would distroy any company that tried and corner the market. This is the point your leading too right?

Your saying the companies would just get bigger and bigger without regulation?

[greyflcn]

"ONLY"

You do realize that word is a hallmark of ideology?

And similarly, an oligopoly is practically the same thing, and what we are really talking about.

[martinaoe2]

It is. But from what I as a humble person have looked up, I have came to that conclusion. Can you tell me any other way they can?

[greyflcn]

Well anyways, the basic premise of this healthcare debate is the ability to set up a private non-profit corporation, which would use fees/premiums to finance itself.

And the consumer is left to choose between this option, or private programs.

The consumer gets to pick whichever is best for them.

[martinaoe2]

How can private industry compete with a gov agency with no over heads.

It will lead to the distruction of private insurance companies.

This would leave the gov as a monopoly.

The suppliers to the gov could then charge what they want.

[greyflcn]

re: martinaoe2

Governments programs don't have "no overheads"

Overhead is generally considered to be administrative and transfer costs. And in this particular situation since we are comparing non-profit versus for-profit, it also includes profit.

In that respect, the company with the slimest overhead is by definition, the most efficient.

Given this definition of overhead,

If the lowest overhead (i.e. Most efficient) dominates the market, how is that a problem?

greyfalcon. net/ overhead2

[RodgersRevolution]

The insurance companies are planning their rates over the next few years. They are not even trying to convince consumers that they will control themselves. A bill without competition will cost us 110% increases in insurance premiums. Are you or your place of employment able to fund this? I can't and neither can my employer.

[martinaoe2]

Ugh.. such bull.. let the free market sort it out. More gov intervention. medicare is broke right? You the tax payer will pay for this

[terpis]

hey martina,

Show us a free market and you might have an argument there--all I see are corporate system-gamers (and their apologists & stooges) who like to SELL bought-and-paid-for, too-big-to-fail, loppsided, loopholed and subsidized arrangements under a big bullshit banner of 'free markets'.

You silly Pautards are as bad as megachurch Huckabee-ites, really...you just got sold a different handful of magic beans.

[martinaoe2]

Hi, Thanks for your reply.

So what system do you propose?

A free market would let the too big to fail. With small Gov you can not buy off anyone because they would not have the power in the first place.

Please propose the system that you want? libs just want more Gov.

See your magic beans is taking from the tax payer to benifit the society at whole. Why should I pay for a lazy bums or someone elses health care. That is the fundamental point.

[greyflcn]

re: martinaoe2

We tried letting corporations solve it.

They suck at it.

greyfalcon. net/ overhead3

The only thing that has ever proven itself to work for healthcare payment is a government program.

greyfalcon. net/ healthcare

And please if you have a country with good "free market" results, by all means show me. Since I don't believe one exists.

[Strutinan]

Ummm...

Iraq? Nope, "free market" economics just meant it was easier to buy bombs.

Chille? Nope, "free market" economics created the drug lords.

I know! MEXICO! It isn't like the "free market" turned the country into a despotic nightmare of government corruption and corporate collusion, a servile pseudostate rules by Amerikkkan businesses, whose people have a BETTER life as 3rd-class slave labor HERE than THERE, and whose streets are ruled by gangs. Right? Right? Thats a GOOD result!?!

[martinaoe2]

@Strutinan

Iraq was never a free market and is currently a stable gov less country. Please dont use it as an example.

Chillian people supply the demand of an illegal substance. I would legalise it and let people make foolish mistakes if they want too.

Mexico is not a free market and never was. Its politicians accomuliated power and you know about power corrupting.

[martinaoe2]

@ greyflcn

No yey have not. America has been tanted since the '20s. Anything since then is an oligopoly capitalism and no free market.

Health care is broke. At its essence the american tax payer will pay for other peoples medicine.

[terpis]

@martina

sphinctersez: "At its essence the american tax payer will pay for other peoples medicine"

Which supports nothing in the way of a "free market" you conspicuously have yet to offer any example of. Bear in mind, btw, that a libertarian all-purpose snake oil, healthcare "tort reform", is in effect TODAY in many states (mine included), and by yielding ZILCH in cost savings puts the lie to itself.

Yr quote is instead just a sad, Galt-y piss on the American idea of 'e pluribus unum'.

[greyflcn]

re: martinaoe2

Well a simple question.

Do you care more about methods, or results?

[martinaoe2]

@ terpis

Well the only example I can give you is america before the '20s. Now theyre were faults back then too but its the closest thing we got to a true free market.

Costs savings for health care can be reduced for free in a number of ways:

- Let companies compete over state lines

- Gov stop devalueing the dollar which inflates prices including medical care. Look at the dow above 10k. Its a joke there is no real recovery. Its an inflationary depression.

Can you please keep it civil.

[greyflcn]

re: martinaoe2

So do you support making it so that insurance companies can count domestic abuse as a pre-existing condition to invalidate your insurance coverage?

Since if you allow insurance companies to merge, and relocate to whatever state has the weakest legal system, that's the type of stuff you will get.

8 states currently allow that.

[martinaoe2]

@greyflcn

I care about the methods when it affects the results yes.

[greyflcn]

re: martinaoe2

You're avoiding the question.

Which must you absolutely have. Methods or Results.

[greyflcn]

Well I guess the methods/results issue is a bit unfair.

But the basic premise is that if you care more about methods, than results, then you aren't being more ideological than rational.

So often you get people arguing for the option with weaker performance, merely because it fits better with their pet ideology.

Almost intentionally blinding themselves to empirical performance track records.

[martinaoe2]

@greyflcn

Its not that I care more about methods my friend its just that I believe in these methods, its not blind faith. I am open to debate of course.

You seem to be a very educated man. I dont understand what you mean "empirical performance track records" ? Could you elaberate?

I am a rational being. Well I like to think so :)

[greyflcn]

re: martinaoe2

Well basically it kinda goes back to the previous video I had.

We're spending 17% of our GDP on healthcare

Other countries are spending around 8~10%

And yet we have some of the weakest health outcomes of developed countries.

And as for "track records", my basic premise is that there are no examples of countries with purely private insurance working effectively.

What's more, I would argue that healthcare is far more of a need, than a want. Giving it different market behavior

[martinaoe2]

@grey

Very valid point.Here in ireland were I live we have a state controlled health care system and it is a disaster and has been for years. We have thrown Billions of euro at it and it has not solved the problem. It is just too inefficent. That is my worst fear and then the tax payer bears the burdon.

I did not know there was no place where gov did not control health care and was succesful. I have not investigated it.

I dont believe health care is a right.

[greyflcn]

re: martinaoe2

But anyways, my basic premise with the conglomeration issue

Is that markets that trend toward deconglomeration, are self regulating.

Markets that trend toward conglomeration, are not self regulating.

And you essentially have two options for regulation in that case.

1. Government regulation

2. Government competition

And I prefer the second option.

[martinaoe2]

I dont understand, Your saying that monopolies are created by the free market? Only regulation by the gov creates barries to entry for corporations and then that in turn creates monopolies

That is false i believed. Show me an example.

[greyflcn]

re: martinaoe2

Well I'm saying that markets that "naturally" conglomerate, create collusive oligopolies.

Which are not technically a monopoly, but with all of the same bad behavior.

[xTheOxx]

Weiner in 2016!

[FlowerClown]

Just like UPS, FedEx and e-mail have put the post office out of business. Health insurance companies will find some other scam to sell us. No one has ever been healed by an insurance company and making a profit on the sick is so un-human it must be done by a corporation and its sad to say they have the same rights as humans just not the soul.

[MaryJesusJoseph]

Actually, the post office isn't out of business--there's one just down the street. And UPS and Fedex don't handle small mail with anywhere near the efficiency and cost of USPS.

[FlowerClown]

I never thought I would say this "I love Weiner"

Keep up the good fight for Single Payer Medicare for all.